Dismissed¶25

S.Ramakrishnan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Jul 2026CRL OP/17347/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL OP No. 17347 of 2026, High Court of Madras (C.KUMARAPPAN, J.), decided 07-07-2026: bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 dismissed; accused (custody since 08.05.2026) charged under Section 376 (3) IPC and Sections 5 (l) and 6 (l) POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No.26/2026, All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai; Section 183 BNSS victim statement alleges forcible penetrative sexual assault on sixteen-year-old; girl child born; DNA test requisition pending; bail denied.

What did the court decide?

Considering the serious allegations of forcible penetrative sexual assault demonstrated by the victim's Section 183 BNSS statement and that a requisition has been sent for a DNA test, the Court held it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as there is serious allegation in respect of an unknown person. ¶25

S.Ramakrishnan Vs The State Rep By, The… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 17347 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 17347 of 2026

S.Ramakrishnan

..Petitioner(s)

The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai. Crime No.26/2026

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.26 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr. P.Martin For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

¶15

08.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Section 376 (3) of the I.P.C., and Sections 5 (l) and 6 (l) of the POCSO Act, 2012, in Crime No.26 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner committed forcible

¶17

penetrative sexual assault against the sixteen year old victim. Hence, the case.

¶18

Page1 of 4

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRL OP No. 17347 of 2026

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

¶22

innocent and has been in custody since 08.05.2026. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court

¶23

and ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶24

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and produced the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which contains serious allegations of sexual assault. He further submitted that a girl child was born to the victim and a requisition had been sent for a DNA test. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶25

5.A perusal of the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, clearly demonstrates the serious allegations of forcible penetrative sexual assault against the petitioner. Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), that a requisition has been sent for a DNA test, this Court is of the firm view that it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as there is serious allegation in respect of an unknown person. Consequently, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶26

07-07-2026

¶27

¶28

__________ Page2 of 4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CRL OP No. 17347 of 2026

¶31

¶32